• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.152-161
• /
• 2022

Mandibular implant overdenture is a good treatment option for complete edentulous patients with restoring removable prosthesis. Mandibular implant overdenture with two implants and locator attachments is widely used. It is tissue-supported overdenture that is made with the concept of conventional complete denture fabrication. There are two patients who provided impressions by open mouth technique and closed mouth technique in each case. In both cases, mandibular implant overdentures were restored with functionally and aesthetically satisfying results.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.633-643
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem: Recently there are on an increasing trend of using implants-especially in edentulous mandible of severly alveolar bone recessed. Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the displacement and stress distribution of various mandibular implant-retained overdenture models supported by two implants in interforaminal region under the occlusion scheme load. Material and method: FEA models were made by the 3D scanning of the edentulous mandibular dentiform. The three models were named as Model M1, M2, and M3 accord ing to the position of implants: M1, Lt. incisor area, M2, Canine area, and M3, 1st Premolar area. Inter-implant angulation model was named as M4. Conventional complete denture was named M5 and used as a control group. Ball implant and Gold matrice were used as a retentive anchors. The occlusion type loads were applied horizontally over each tooth. Results: 1. In mandibular implant retained overdenture Canine Protected Occlusion type load resulted in higher levels of stress to the implants and female matrices than other types of loads. 2. The overdenture model M1, with implants in lateral incisor areas resulted in lower stress concentration to the implants and female matrices than other models. 3. In mandibular implant retained overdenture the stresses of the implant and female matrice were lower in mesially inclined implant than these of parallel installed implant. Conclusion: Lateral incisor areas could be the best site for the implants in mandibular implant-retained overdenture. The mandibular implant retained overdenture models mentioned above showed to the lowest stress to the implants and female matrices.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.577-608
• /
• 1997

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution in the bone around dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture according to the number of implant and the type of attachment. Two or four implants were placed in an edentulous mandibular model and three dimensional photoelastic stress analysis was carried out to measure the fringe order around the implant supporting structure and also to calculate principal stress components at cervical area of each implant. The attachments tested were rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar and Dal-Ro attchment. The results were as follows ; 1. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Round bar, Hader bar, and Dal-Ro attachment, compressive stress pattern was observed on the supporting structure of implant on loaded side, while tensile stress pattern in unloaded side. 2. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Dolder bar, the rigid Dolder bar shared the occlusal loads between 2 implants in a more favorable manner than was exhibited by the resilient type, while the resilient type placed a more stress on the distocervical area of the implant on the loaded side. But compressive stress pattern was observed in both the loaded and unloaded sides in either case. 3. In 2-implant supported overdenture, rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar exhibited more cross arch involvement than the Round bar, Hader bar, or Dal-Ro attachment. 4. In 4-implant supported overdenture using resilient Dolder bar and Hader bar, stress turned out to be distributed evenly among the implants between loaded and unloaded side, but thor was no reduction in the magnitude of the stress in the surrounding structure of implant contratry to 2-implant supported overdenture. 5. The stress pattern at cervical area of implant was different with the number of implant or the type of attachment but the overload, harmful to surrounding structure of implant, was not observed.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.245-252
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. RESULTS. Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. CONCLUSION. In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.360-365
• /
• 2000

The completely edentulous patient has few treatment options in conventional dentistry. When implants are considered, treatment plans range from a 2-implant overdenture to a completely implant-supported prosthesis. Fixed prosthesis is often the preferred selection of the edentulous patient. fixed full-arch cert amo-metal restorations can be a predictable implant treatment modality for the edentulous patient. Implant-supported fixed prosthesis has several advantages: predictability, fixedness, retrievability, improved function, lower maintenance of prosthesis, long-term published success. Edentulous patients with a severely resorbed mandible often experience problems with their dentures. Treatment concepts involving two to four implants for the support of an overdenture have been proposed. There seems to be no need to insert more than two endosteal implants to support an overdenture, however, long-term prospective studies are needed to support this notion. Using short endosseous implants and an overdenture in the extremely resorbed mandible is a justified treatment option because of the relative simplicity and low morbidity of this treatment strategy. Implant-supported overdenture has several advantages: Cost, retrievability, hygiene access, profile and contour control, increased retention and stability, implant installed in a predicted region(ant. mandible).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.254-258
• /
• 2012

Implant-supported overdenture is a reliable treatment option for the patients with edentulous mandible when they have difficulty in using complete dentures. Several options have been used for implant-supported overdenture attachments. Among these, bar attachment system has greater retention and better maintainability than others. SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ is prefabricated and can be adjustable at chairside. Therefore, laboratory procedures such as soldering and welding are unnecessary, which leads to fewer errors and lower costs. A 67-year-old female patient presented, complaining of mobility of lower anterior teeth with old denture. She had been wearing complete denture in the maxilla and removable partial denture in the mandible with severe bone loss. After extracting the teeth, two implants were placed in front of mental foramen, and SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ was connected. A tube bar was seated to two adapters through large ball joints and fixation screws, connecting each implant. The length of the tube bar was adjusted according to inter-implant distance. Then, a female part was attached to the bar beneath the new denture. This clinical report describes two-implant-supported overdenture using the SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ system in a mandibular edentulous patient.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.359-371
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant overdentures with telescopic crowns compared to bar attachment. Material and methods: Three-dimensional finite element models consisting of the mandibular bone, 4 implants, and primary bar-splinted superstructure or secondary splinted superstructure with telescopic crowns were created. Vertical and oblique loads were directed onto the occlusal areas of the superstructures to simulate the maximal intercuspal contacts and working contacts such as group function occlusion. Maximum stress and stress distribution were analysed in mandibular bone, implant abutments, and superstructures. Results: 1. In comparison of von Mises stress on mandibular bone, telescopic overdenture had a little lower stress values in vertical load and working side load except oblique load. In the mandible, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress than the bar overdenture. 2. In comparison of von Mises stress on implant abutments, telescopic overdenture had much lower stress values in all load conditions. In implant abutments, the telescopic overdenture distributed stress similar to the bar overdenture. Stress was concentrated on the distal surfaces of the posterior implant abutments in both mandibular overdentures. 3. In comparison of von Mises stress on superstructures, the telescopic overdenture had much more stress values in all load conditions. However, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress on superstructure than the bar overdenture. In the bar overdenture, stress was concentrated on each cental area of bar structures and connected area between implant abutments and bar structures. Conclusion: In the results of this study, the telescopic overdenture had lower stress values than the bar overdenture in mandibular bone and implant abutments, but more stress values in superstructures. However, if optimal material was selected in making superstructures, the telescopic overdenture was compared to the bar overdenture in stress distribution.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.61 no.1
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2023

For fully edentulous patients, implant-supported overdenture can be considered to enhance chewing efficiency and denture stability. Implant planning software can be used to fabricate a surgical guide for a more precise consideration of anatomic factors and prediction of the shape of definitive prosthesis. Though there are many possible attachments for implant overdenture, milled bar can be useful due to its splinting effect of implants and rigid support of overdenture. This report presents a case of implant-supported milled bar overdenture after guided implant surgery performed with two surgical guide that was fabricated before and after bone reduction.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.333-340
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study was accomplished to assess the biomechanical state of different retaining methods of bar implant-overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two 3D finite element models were designed. The first model included implant overdenture retained by Hader-clip attachment, while the second model included two extracoronal resilient attachment (ERA) studs added distally to Hader splint bar. A non-linear frictional contact type was assumed between overdentures and mucosa to represent sliding and rotational movements among different attachment components. A 200 N was applied at the molar region unilaterally and perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Additionally, the mandible was restrained at their ramus ends. The maximum equivalent stress and strain (von Mises) were recorded and analyzed at the bone-implant interface level. RESULTS. The values of von Mises stress and strain of the first model at bone-implant interface were higher than their counterparts of the second model. Stress concentration and high value of strain were recognized surrounding implant of the unloaded side in both models. CONCLUSION. There were different patterns of stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface between the studied attachment designs. Hader bar-clip attachment showed better biomechanical behavior than adding ERA studs distal to hader bar.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.98-107
• /
• 2000

Three linear strain gauges (KFR-02N-120-C1-23, Kyowa, Japan) were placed around the abutment of implant future and the maximum axial loads on the mandibular implants supporting over dentures were registered in experimental model when the overdenture was removed. The overdenture attachments used in this study were Round bar Hader bar, Dolder bar with and with out spacer. The retention of bar attachment was measured using universal testing machine while being con-trolled by Activating set and Deactivator except in case of the Hader bar. Simultaneously strains were recorded with the strain smart program in strain P-6000 series (Measurement group, Raleigh, USA). The maximum axial load was calculated and compared with each other. The results were as follows: 1. The amount and the timing of the maximum axial loads were different between the right and left implant in all attachment systems. 2. The retention of bar attachment except Hader bar could be adjusted but the controllability was different among the attachment systems. 3. The more the axial load, the higher the retention with Hader bar and Dolder bar without spacer. but the tendency of increase was not shown with round bar and Dolder bar with spacer.